Precisely why I avoid getting involved in political “discussions” (translate: arguments) here.
Not only will you not change the world, you’re not even likely to change any single person’s mind.
A short debate during a news broadcast would be a refreshing change from the usual argument with 2-3 people all talking at the same time.
It’s either that or listening to a speech by King Fink.
“Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but you’re not very likely to change the world with your brilliant political commentary here on GoComics”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I’m crushed!
Isn’t it scientific fact, not a political debate? Politicians are a problem in themselves.
It’s not the journalists I care about. It’s the elected officials who make decisions based on the politically-biased journalists instead of by reading the studies themselves.
But then again, that would require congressmen with an IQ large enough for them to be able to read a scientific paper without some journalist giving them the politically-biased executive summary.
@Alan Watkins – not at all. I work with a lot of engineers and I don’t know a one of them who subscribes to AGW. The political dimension is troubling as well – the participants follow political lines more closely than for any theory since Hitler’s “supreme race” claim. Legitimate science does not look like that. (I am a career scientist… 44 years.)
Facts don’t seem to get in the way of politics anymore, if they ever really did.
If I haven’t convinced you, then I must not be yelling loudly enough.
See today’s “Non-Sequitur” for how GW got started.
How much easier it is to dismiss everyone as a hack than to think about what they have to say.
Global warming has already been disproven.
Mastroianni and Hart